Predisposed does not mean Permanent
By: Shannon Laughlin
As a girl with two brothers, I spent most of my time growing up playing computer games, building with Legos, and making tracks for my Hot Wheels. At the time, I didn’t understand that these were stereotypically “boyish” toys, and my parents never discouraged me from playing with them. These early interests later led to an interest in science, mathematics, and all things technology. Loving STEM subjects was such a normality for me that I was quite shocked to discover the minority of women entering this career, and it was even more of a shock to encounter scientists claiming that women are predisposed by their genes to chose other careers instead. An example of these scientists are David Lubinski and Camilla Benbow, who claim that “although the sexes do not differ in general intelligence, they do differ in their specific ability patterns, interests, and number of hours willing to devote to their careers (80).” However, my childhood experience and a bounty of opposing research conveys that culture plays a larger role than predisposed attributes in impacting women’s career choices, particularly in the STEM fields. In fact, these “predisposed” differences may not even exist.
The main characteristic that Lubinski and Benbow claim differs in men and women is cognitive ability. They pull out a few studies showing boys excelling and girls falling behind in cognitive abilities such as math. Also, studies stating that girls excel in verbal areas are tied in, with the claim that people choose their career from the area they are better at, and that high-achieving girls in cognitive abilities are likely better in verbal skills, and thus, prefer a verbally-focused career. Even though Lubinski and Benbow used many studies, including their own, to prove their position, they did not mention the other side of the argument and all the opposing data. In the “Why so Few?” PowerPoint released by the AAUW, it is shown that cognitive abilities are malleable and can be improved with training. Thus, any data collected testing cognitive abilities cannot assume that the tested ability is “innate:” some subjects may score higher because they use cognitive abilities more than others, not because it is “natural.” Even bigger evidence contradicting this stance comes from a 2011 study published in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society. Mertz and Kane collected math score data from 86 countries and found that the scores were influenced by culture, not biology. Middle Eastern countries showed girls outperforming boys. Both genders overall performed better in countries with more gender equality. Thus, differences in cognitive ability are affected by the culture and vary place-to-place, not by sex.
Next, Lubinski and Benbow tackle the claim that women are simply never as interested as men in STEM fields. It is hard to determine the validity of the studies they included, but it can be concluded that phenomenon is undoubtedly shaped by culture. Women are not “predisposed” to like STEM less. A survey compiled by Cambridge Occupational Analysts detailed men and women’s interests in STEM subjects over the past seven years. Women’s interest in general engineering rose 16%, while boys’ only rose 5%. Similar trends are shown, with the number of females showing interest in STEM having a large increase across the board. This indicates that recent movements to boost women’s excitement towards STEM fields may be working, and thus, a group’s interest in something is subject to change and based on environment. Similar data is shown from the AAUW report “Why So Few?”. The study shows that when mentors tell girls that their intelligence can expand with practice, they will score higher on math tests and are more likely to show desire to continue studying math. This type of belief is called an “incremental mindset,” and is discussed in further detail by Virginia Valian in Chapter 1. The findings of this study show that a girl’s mindset can also affect her interest towards a subject, and one’s mindset is determined by environment/culture, not gender. Interest in an occupation is influenced by one’s own mindset and culturally prescribed values.
The remaining cause discussed, conative factors, is shown to differ in men and women according to the studies they examine. In the argument that women are willing to work less and thus, do not achieve highly in STEM positions, Lubinski and Benbow draw many questionable conclusions. They only provide one study showing women choosing to work less hours than men, and from that study they assume that men are being more productive and are, consequently, promoted. However, this cannot be assumed because there are studies that show women being more productive than men in general. A research consultancy called the Ponemon Institute found that while being monitored, women worked 4.9 minutes during a ten-minute trial while men worked 4.3. While not aware of observation, women worked 2.5 minutes out of ten and men worked 2.1. So a possibility is that women choose to work less hours because it takes them less time to complete a task. Or, perhaps women choose to work less due to culturally pressured beliefs that they should spend more time raising their families. And even this does not mean they will be less productive, as a study by Matthias Krapf, Heinrich Ursprung, and Christian Zimmerson shows that women with more children are more productive than those with less or none. Overall, the data showing women choosing to work less is shaky and definitely not a “prescribed attribute”, and even if they do choose to work less, it will not affect their productivity.
In sum, culture is the main sculptor in the disparity of women in STEM careers. Going back to my personal childhood story, I believe that it is crucial to not discourage girls from participating in stereotypically boyish activities. As shown above, the causes for women not choosing sciences are not permanent, and Lubinski and Benbow fail to recognize the malleability of the traits they point out. Preventing girls from feeling culturally prescribed pressures will allow for a more unbiased career choice, and will aid in the enhancement of women in STEM fields.
Image: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/72/bb/6d/72bb6d3382e9057aaf939407d0fd6e28.jpg